PS4/Xbox One Discussion

[bauer77]

I'm mainly an xbox guy, but i do own a ps3 as well. I'm going to get the xbox one first, because IMO, I've thought the online play was far superior than ps3. Like i said, my opinion, don't kill me for it. lol.

 

I'm fine with being online once every 24 hours, because I'm on at least once a day now as it is, even if its just to watch netflix. And I'm a little mad about the used games thing, but i went and looked through my games last night, and probably 90% of them i bought new anyway, so i'm meh about it. 

 

Plus, i like the xbox exclusives better. Halo, Gears, Dead Rising (and i'm sure there are others that i can't think about right now), are a few of my favorite games that I've played. So i'm willing to fork over an extra $100 to play them. 

 

I won't be getting either one on launch day, but I will get an xbox one first. I'll probably still end up getting a ps4 eventually, cause a few of my xbox buddies are gonna get both as well. I just will wait a little for that. 

Edited June 12, 2013 by bauer77

[GrimCoconut]

I just read a nice article on IGN about the Xbox1. I have to say, unless Microsoft changes some of these things I will probably not choose this console. 

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/06/microsoft-details-xbox-one-used-games-always-online

 

I won't reference the entire article; you can read it yourselves. I will simply point out highlights I found a tad disturbing: 

 

1.) Always Online: “With Xbox One you can game offline for up to 24 hours on your primary console, or one hour if you are logged on to a separate console accessing your library. Offline gaming is not possible after these prescribed times until you re-establish a connection, but you can still watch live TV and enjoy Blu-ray and DVD movies."

 

Not a big deal, though I think that could affect some users because not everyone always has an Internet connection. I realize that most do have one and those who don't probably won't be playing Xbox, but there are those who this will affect. Sucks for them. 

 

2.) Used Games and Giving Games to Friends: "There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once.”

 

They talk a lot about how Microsoft makes no money off of this. I really don't care about that. What disturbs me is that they only allow you to re-use a game once. That's absolutely ridiculous. I will tell you that I won't buy a lot of games if that's the case. I rented, borrowed, or bought games to try them out to see if they were worth buying. If not, I returned them. Now, perhaps they will innovate and allow demos & trials of games that will eliminate this concern, but regardless I'm not happy about this. 

 

Those were the two key-points that stood out the most to me personally. 

[Guest nflfan123]

The online thing is actually a big deal for me because my internet goes down a lot lol

[GrimCoconut]

The online thing is actually a big deal for me because my internet goes down a lot lol

Yeah, but you only need to connect once a day. Does it go out for extended periods? You can still play offline games as long as it can connect once daily. 

[Guest nflfan123]

Yeah, but you only need to connect once a day. Does it go out for extended periods? You can still play offline games as long as it can connect once daily. 

unfortunately what happens is it goes down for about 2-3 days. But it only happens once every few months or so

[GrimCoconut]

unfortunately what happens is it goes down for about 2-3 days. But it only happens once every few months or so

That does suck. Sorry to hear that. 

 

I'm just not liking the new Xbox. Way too many loops for me to jump. I feel like there's too much to this. It seems way too complicated--unnecessarily so. 

[Guest nflfan123]

That does suck. Sorry to hear that. 

 

I'm just not liking the new Xbox. Way too many loops for me to jump. I feel like there's too much to this. It seems way too complicated--unnecessarily so. 

Lol It's not  a problem. I can live without the internet for a few days. I completely agree about the Xbox. I had both 360 and PS3, but I may not get the Xbox One.

[T3hRaven]

What is that last sentence supposed to mean? Nintendo has the best first party games and they definitely don't suck.

 

Forgive me if I don't get excited about another iteration of the exact same game with the exact same characters, still lacking personality and any semblance of a deep story.  I'm not so easily amused.  And on top of that, Nintendo's production values are so low it makes a SyFy Original Movie look like Avatar.  

 

Nintendo is not a video game company, it's a children's toy company on par with the Lego's and Hasbro's of the world.  I don't understand how actual gamers could consider them to be relevant anymore.

[GrimCoconut]

Forgive me if I don't get excited about another iteration of the exact same game with the exact same characters, still lacking personality and any semblance of a deep story.  I'm not so easily amused.  And on top of that, Nintendo's production values are so low it makes a SyFy Original Movie look like Avatar.

 

Nintendo is not a video game company, it's a children's toy company on par with the Lego's and Hasbro's of the world.  I don't understand how actual gamers could consider them to be relevant anymore.

So I am easily amused? I happen to like those games. I think they've had plenty of original games. 

[sliceanddic3]

Forgive me if I don't get excited about another iteration of the exact same game with the exact same characters, still lacking personality and any semblance of a deep story. I'm not so easily amused. And on top of that, Nintendo's production values are so low it makes a SyFy Original Movie look like Avatar.

Nintendo is not a video game company, it's a children's toy company on par with the Lego's and Hasbro's of the world. I don't understand how actual gamers could consider them to be relevant anymore.

What fits your description of a gamer? A person who loves video games? Just because they may not look super extra high def or are violent doesn't mean they're not fun and addictive games. It's people like you who are ruining the industry.

Have you ever thought for once in your life that graphics don't mean anything? You could make the most realistic looking game on the planet, but if the gameplay is awful, no one will buy it. That is what Nintendo does right, they don't focus on the realism and focus on creating a fun game everyone can enjoy.

I'm 19 years old and still love Nintendo, as do a lot of people my age. Please stop this nonsense and rethink your description of a "gamer".

Also, so what if they recreate old games or add on to them? They're doing what the people want, and unlike COD they still make it quality. More than just more map packs and new guns. They're one of the only gaming company who hasn't sold out and keep making quality games, which is why I respect them.

Edited June 12, 2013 by sliceanddic3

[Cville-Raven]

Forgive me if I don't get excited about another iteration of the exact same game with the exact same characters, still lacking personality and any semblance of a deep story.  I'm not so easily amused.  And on top of that, Nintendo's production values are so low it makes a SyFy Original Movie look like Avatar.

 

Nintendo is not a video game company, it's a children's toy company on par with the Lego's and Hasbro's of the world.  I don't understand how actual gamers could consider them to be relevant anymore.

LOL Ok

[Corvus]

I think for a lot of people who have a problem with connecting their single player game every day isn't so mucb because of unreliable internet connections. To me, I would be paying $60 for a new game and I can see registering a game upon the first time you put it in your console. But to need me to need to confirm within 24 hours every time I play my game is a bit insulting to insinuate that you Microsoft are more worried about me pirating something I paid hard earned money for than being able to just enjoy the purchase. Just my opinion, but one I think a lot of the more casual consumers may share.

[Clutch Ravens]

Yeah. That is a bit absurd. I guess they're trying to get more money because their currency is stronger lol. I'm not sure.

 

 

Non-US gamers always pay more. Though it's usually due to taxing.

Can't wait for the PS4.

 

Chances are I'll be in the US in November to take in a number of games. (Trying to figure out a way to fit in as many games as possible in 10 days, looks like I'll manage about 5)

 

I can't remember if this generation is still region locked, but I'd be SOOOOO tempted to pick up a PS4 while I'm state-side. If they stop me at customs (in the UK) I'll just tell them it's a "gift".

[GrimCoconut]

Chances are I'll be in the US in November to take in a number of games. (Trying to figure out a way to fit in as many games as possible in 10 days, looks like I'll manage about 5)

I can't remember if this generation is still region locked, but I'd be SOOOOO tempted to pick up a PS4 while I'm state-side. If they stop me at customs (in the UK) I'll just tell them it's a "gift".

Yeah. Hopefully they let you. That is bogus that they charge more. I read on ign that the PS3 is region free.

[GrimCoconut]

http://m.ign.com/articles/2013/06/12/gamers-without-internet-can-stick-with-xbox-360-says-microsoft

I'm on mobile. I can't reference info in the article easily but to paraphrase Microsoft is saying if you want an offline device they have one--the Xbox 360. Does anyone else think that's one of the dumbest statements ever?

[Clutch Ravens]

http://m.ign.com/articles/2013/06/12/gamers-without-internet-can-stick-with-xbox-360-says-microsoft

I'm on mobile. I can't reference info in the article easily but to paraphrase Microsoft is saying if you want an offline device they have one--the Xbox 360. Does anyone else think that's one of the dumbest statements ever?

 

They're taking their ball and going home.

 

Wonder when Microsoft's head of PR will come out and say "Those are the views of an individual, not of Microsoft as a whole."

 

Comments less stupid than that have got people fired.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Clutch Ravens

[EnVy_CaLiBeR]

Nintendo is not a video game company, it's a children's toy company on par with the Lego's and Hasbro's of the world.  I don't understand how actual gamers could consider them to be relevant anymore.

That's one reason why.

Nintendo's first party games are still some of the best in the industry. That's why they're relevant.

[T3hRaven]

What fits your description of a gamer? A person who loves video games? Just because they may not look super extra high def or are violent doesn't mean they're not fun and addictive games. It's people like you who are ruining the industry.

Have you ever thought for once in your life that graphics don't mean anything? You could make the most realistic looking game on the planet, but if the gameplay is awful, no one will buy it. That is what Nintendo does right, they don't focus on the realism and focus on creating a fun game everyone can enjoy.

I'm 19 years old and still love Nintendo, as do a lot of people my age. Please stop this nonsense and rethink your description of a "gamer".

Also, so what if they recreate old games or add on to them? They're doing what the people want, and unlike COD they still make it quality. More than just more map packs and new guns. They're one of the only gaming company who hasn't sold out and keep making quality games, which is why I respect them.

 

If you actually read my post, you would see that I didn't say anything about graphics.  There is a certain par value that any modern video game should hit, but after that point it is irrelevant.  I don't dislike Nintendo because they have cartoony, some would say poor, graphics, I dislike Nintendo because they don't tell stories and they don't have characters.  Mario isn't a character, he has no personality.  Then there's the biggest offender with Link, who has less personality than a bale of hay.  Having some mutant turtle steal your girlfriend over and over and over again is not an involved and deep storytelling experience, it's stupidity.  The characters don't grow, things don't change, and it lacks the emotional connection that is the defining characteristic of so many great stories and games.  Outside of nostalgia, I don't understand how people can get excited for Nintendo games anymore.  I don't know if catering to the lowest common denominator is necessarily their fault.  I think they tried to makes games with characters and story with Fire Emblem, but it didn't sell the way a Super Mario Takes a Crap or a Donkey Kong Krap Kountry would so they didn't invest much in it.  Even the Paper Mario series has tried to give Mario a story, but those don't sell.

 

Which makes your argument about Nintendo being the one company that didn't sell out wrong, in fact you couldn't be more wrong.  Nintendo is the one company that has sold out, they began to cater to casual gamers in order to increase their dwindling market share.  I know fanboyism blinds some people, but at least be honest about what your chosen company is doing.

 

When Activision tried to make more money by setting up a roadmap to monthly subscription fees for COD, I stopped buying and playing the series.  I've already said I'm waiting around a year to get a new system, and it's widely agreed by those who follow the industry that the first few weeks of sales are vitally important.  I'm sorry I view games as an immersive and unique storytelling medium that should evolve and continue to grow in that aspect for the future.  I probably hold games to too high of a standard, but I'm far from what's holding the industry back.

[EnVy_CaLiBeR]

It's one thing to say that Nintendo's games just don't appeal to you anymore and that you don't like how some of their games don't have a story aspect to them. It's another to try and argue their relevancy as a video game company. Their first party games sell like hotcakes because they are quality titles and once again, are still some of the best games in the business. Mario barely has a story but you'd be hard pressed to find many platforming games that surpass it. Same with Zelda and the action-adventure genre. They change their formulas enough to keep fans coming for more and their games are usually top-notch. I'm not even a huge Nintendo guy but even I can recognize this.

Both of the other big console manufacturers clearly understand their relevancy. Motion-controlled gaming with the Wii lead Microsoft and Sony to both follow suit and create the Playstation Move and Kinect (which both are still pushing with the next-gen consoles). The main reason people say Nintendo sold out to the casual gamers was because they went with the motion-control with the Wii so doesn't that mean the other companies sold out as well for following? Also, Sony has drew inspirations from a number of Nintendo games and tried to recreate them as exclusives under their branding. Their relevance as a video game company is well established.

I can understand wanting more stories out of their games and being burnt out on them, though.

Edited June 12, 2013 by EnVy_CaLiBeR

[Corvus]

It's one thing to say that Nintendo's games just don't appeal to you anymore and that you don't like how some of their games don't have a story aspect to them. It's another to try and argue their relevancy as a video game company. Their first party games sell like hotcakes because they are quality titles and once again, are still some of the best games in the business. Mario barely has a story but you'd be hard pressed to find many platforming games that surpass it. Same with Zelda and the action-adventure genre. They change their formulas enough to keep fans coming for more and their games are usually top-notch. I'm not even a huge Nintendo guy but even I can recognize this.

Both of the other big console manufacturers clearly understand their relevancy. Motion-controlled gaming with the Wii lead Microsoft and Sony to both follow suit and create the Playstation Move and Kinect (which both are still pushing with the next-gen consoles). The main reason people say Nintendo sold out to the casual gamers was because they went with the motion-control with the Wii so doesn't that mean the other companies sold out as well for following? Also, Sony has drew inspirations from a number of Nintendo games and tried to recreate them as exclusives under their branding. Their relevance as a video game company is well established.

I can understand wanting more stories out of their games and being burnt out on them, though.

I have to agree with this. I've owned the NES, SNES, N64, and have played the regular Wii quite a bit and Nintendo always has made pretty solid games. They are no less a video game company than Sony or Microsoft.

That said I agree with both of your sentiments, I really enjoy having some semblance of characters, plot, and writing which is probably why I don't have a Wii (as not all but many of its titles areore casual games) or play "social/casual" games and why a lot of the games I play are AAA big studio titles.

[GrimCoconut]

If you actually read my post, you would see that I didn't say anything about graphics. There is a certain par value that any modern video game should hit, but after that point it is irrelevant. I don't dislike Nintendo because they have cartoony, some would say poor, graphics, I dislike Nintendo because they don't tell stories and they don't have characters. Mario isn't a character, he has no personality. Then there's the biggest offender with Link, who has less personality than a bale of hay. Having some mutant turtle steal your girlfriend over and over and over again is not an involved and deep storytelling experience, it's stupidity. The characters don't grow, things don't change, and it lacks the emotional connection that is the defining characteristic of so many great stories and games. Outside of nostalgia, I don't understand how people can get excited for Nintendo games anymore. I don't know if catering to the lowest common denominator is necessarily their fault. I think they tried to makes games with characters and story withFire Emblem, but it didn't sell the way a Super Mario Takes a Crap or a Donkey Kong Krap Kountry would so they didn't invest much in it. Even the Paper Mario series has tried to give Mario a story, but those don't sell.

Which makes your argument about Nintendo being the one company that didn't sell out wrong, in fact you couldn't be more wrong. Nintendo is the one company that has sold out, they began to cater to casual gamers in order to increase their dwindling market share. I know fanboyism blinds some people, but at least be honest about what your chosen company is doing.

When Activision tried to make more money by setting up a roadmap to monthly subscription fees for COD, I stopped buying and playing the series. I've already said I'm waiting around a year to get a new system, and it's widely agreed by those who follow the industry that the first few weeks of sales are vitally important. I'm sorry I view games as an immersive and unique storytelling medium that should evolve and continue to grow in that aspect for the future. I probably hold games to too high of a standard, but I'm far from what's holding the industry back.

You make many fair points. I understand if you're disappointed in the stories and the rehashes. I'm a diehard Nintendo fan, so I will defend them.

First, your major issue seems to stem from Nintendo rehashing ideas. This is add legitimate problem. I tired of the Four Swords and the re-releases. I don't buy those games. I've played them. I don't care about updated graphics and stuff.

Now you and others here suggest that Nintendo isn't very story driven. I don't agree with this. While it's completely true that Nintendo is guilty of the re-release they are not guilty of poor stories.

The Wind Waker had terrific story. It developed on Ganondorf and seriously expanded his story and provided motivation behind everything he has done. While it's true that Link has a bland personalty that is by design. The intentions behind Link were to have him remain an anonymous character where they player themselves were him. Link is the least developed character and while you can argue that's a problem it's not in my opinion. Furthermore, Skyward Sword was brilliant in terms of story. The story was one of the best I've seen in a Zelda game or any other not withstanding some of the best stories in video games.

Outside of Zelda you have positively brilliant stories in the Metroid Prime series. I'm not sure if you ever played Eternal Darkness but that's one of the greatest games I've ever played. The characters are rich beyond comparison for the time.

Xenoblade Chronicles has fantastic story. It's really, really good. So good that it goes for 100+ on eBay.

Nintendo also has Sin and Punishment, Metroid: Other M, and Smash Bros. Smash Bros is a fantastic game and they tried to provide it a story. They tried to give it some story and that wasn't easy to pull off due to the epic scale of Nintendo and their franchises.

Nintendo has so many properties they don't even know what to do with them all and that can be a problem. They have neglected many good franchises to frustrate me with rehashes but I understand they do it because those sell.

Sadly the Eternal Darkness games have mostly failed them. It's bizarre but what do you want? They do what makes them money and they treat those loyal with some excellent games.

I know you dislike the rehashes of Mario. I can't expect much from those. They are supposed to be light hearted. They are supposed to just be fun. There isn't a lot of story. There isn't supposed to be. What do you expect? Mario waging war or something? Lol. That wouldn't work. They really do the best they can with the Mario franchise. My only complaint is they keep releasing the same game lol.

Edited June 12, 2013 by GrimCoconut

[T3hRaven]

Zelda is what Nintendo gamers spout everytime, and I just don't see it.  I've played the series extensively and it is basically the same thing over and over, and the story is not that deep.  I'm not saying that having 'you' be the hero isn't a valid strategy anymore, I just don't it works the way they set up that franchise.  I find the games rather dull, and it's one of those areas where Nintendo's lack of production values shows up in a big way.  There's no reason for any game like that, with the technology we have, to not be voiced over.  It's about getting par for the course, and it's very easy to get there.  It's a constant throughout Nintendo's games, and it bothers me a lot.  I don't think Metroid is anything special either.  

 

Nintendo hasn't excited me in years, even two generations ago the GameCube was my neglected system.  I think their hardware has displayed a lack of awareness of what gamers want, with the stupid waggle motion controller and the unwieldy television sized controller they recently implemented.  They generally have a lack of third party support, and if Zelda and Metroid are all they have to offer to the hardcore crowd I don't see the point.

 

You're not going to convince me that Nintendo wouldn't be better off as a mobile game company.  Their shallow lighthearted gaming would greatly appeal to that crowd, it features consumers that fit into their casual and expanding market share, and it's an area that's just waiting for a big developer who understands that sort of platform to come in and take over.  Mario on Android is something even I would buy because that's where it works.  

 

Until Nintendo can develop a game as deep and emotionally engaging as Mass Effect, I'll continue to find them irrelevant and you're not going to convince me otherwise.

[GrimCoconut]

Zelda is what Nintendo gamers spout everytime, and I just don't see it. I've played the series extensively and it is basically the same thing over and over, and the story is not that deep. I'm not saying that having 'you' be the hero isn't a valid strategy anymore, I just don't it works the way they set up that franchise. I find the games rather dull, and it's one of those areas where Nintendo's lack of production values shows up in a big way. There's no reason for any game like that, with the technology we have, to not be voiced over. It's about getting par for the course, and it's very easy to get there. It's a constant throughout Nintendo's games, and it bothers me a lot. I don't think Metroid is anything special either.

Nintendo hasn't excited me in years, even two generations ago the GameCube was my neglected system. I think their hardware has displayed a lack of awareness of what gamers want, with the stupid waggle motion controller and the unwieldy television sized controller they recently implemented. They generally have a lack of third party support, and if Zelda and Metroid are all they have to offer to the hardcore crowd I don't see the point.

You're not going to convince me that Nintendo wouldn't be better off as a mobile game company. Their shallow lighthearted gaming would greatly appeal to that crowd, it features consumers that fit into their casual and expanding market share, and it's an area that's just waiting for a big developer who understands that sort of platform to come in and take over. Mario on Android is something even I would buy because that's where it works.

Until Nintendo can develop a game as deep and emotionally engaging as Mass Effect, I'll continue to find them irrelevant and you're not going to convince me otherwise.

I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong because you simply have an opinion. There's never a wrong opinion. I just disagree with your opinion of Zelda and Metroid among many other of your opinions on Nintendo. Those two series have very good stories. Even still they're not the best stories Nintendo had but they're very engaging. Metroid was a fantastic experience. I'm surprised you're so callous towards the Prime series. They were very good.

I think Nintendo lost you because their stories aren't as engaging as perhaps other studios. I can't deny Nintendo lacks something in terms of stories similar to movies. If you're looking for that experience then it probably does fall short.

With that said, those games I mentioned are all very engaging stories. I recognize that Nintendo has a problem in terms of no voice acting with Zelda but in their defense they tried they with Metroid and people had conflicted opinions.

As I said I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong but there's more to this than your opinion on the subject. That's my entire purpose in this discussion is to simply discuss the other perspective of Nintendo. If you choose to understand or not that's on you. I'd hope you wouldn't be so narrow minded as to be so definitive in your opinion that it can't be fluid. I hope you're more open minded than that.

[Grendelwulf21]

I get what you're saying, though I haven't played much of any newer games for the Wii and whatnot, but the SNES has some pretty good stories in some of their games my favorites are probably Chrono Trigger and FF3

 

BUT! I've played some awesome drinking games on the Wii, like the Wii bowling, Mario Party(a billion) and Mario and Sonic and the Olympics

[JO_75]

I don't know about the Xbox 360 but people who have a PS3 like I do know how hot the PS3 can get. It will produce a lot of heat if it has been on for a long time. I know they have accessories to help cool the system, but how would this work with the PS4? Is it less likely to generate heat after being used for a long period of time and has a built in cooling system or will there be a need to buy a cooling system for the PS4?

[sliceanddic3]

If you actually read my post, you would see that I didn't say anything about graphics.  There is a certain par value that any modern video game should hit, but after that point it is irrelevant.  I don't dislike Nintendo because they have cartoony, some would say poor, graphics, I dislike Nintendo because they don't tell stories and they don't have characters.  Mario isn't a character, he has no personality.  Then there's the biggest offender with Link, who has less personality than a bale of hay.  Having some mutant turtle steal your girlfriend over and over and over again is not an involved and deep storytelling experience, it's stupidity.  The characters don't grow, things don't change, and it lacks the emotional connection that is the defining characteristic of so many great stories and games.  Outside of nostalgia, I don't understand how people can get excited for Nintendo games anymore.  I don't know if catering to the lowest common denominator is necessarily their fault.  I think they tried to makes games with characters and story with Fire Emblem, but it didn't sell the way a Super Mario Takes a Crap or a Donkey Kong Krap Kountry would so they didn't invest much in it.  Even the Paper Mario series has tried to give Mario a story, but those don't sell.

 

Which makes your argument about Nintendo being the one company that didn't sell out wrong, in fact you couldn't be more wrong.  Nintendo is the one company that has sold out, they began to cater to casual gamers in order to increase their dwindling market share.  I know fanboyism blinds some people, but at least be honest about what your chosen company is doing.

 

When Activision tried to make more money by setting up a roadmap to monthly subscription fees for COD, I stopped buying and playing the series.  I've already said I'm waiting around a year to get a new system, and it's widely agreed by those who follow the industry that the first few weeks of sales are vitally important.  I'm sorry I view games as an immersive and unique storytelling medium that should evolve and continue to grow in that aspect for the future.  I probably hold games to too high of a standard, but I'm far from what's holding the industry back.

What are you talking about? Nintendo games have great story, maybe not character development, but there is no doubt they do that on purpose. They have no personality characters like Link and whatever the main character in Pokemon is to let you decide who that character is and what their personality is like. Fire Emblem sold great btw and has gotten fantastic reviews. 

 

Nintendo has been making games the same way since their inception. How is that selling out? If they make games that still have the same charm and depth that made that company waaaay back when, that is not my definition of selling out. They do generally do aim their games towards kids, but that is not the least bit selling out. 

 

Lol I might have went overboard by saying you are ruining the industry, I apologize, but I still do not agree with your thoughts on Nintendo.

[H8R]

Nintendo is a gimmick system, as always... Gimmicks fade.

[sliceanddic3]

Zelda is what Nintendo gamers spout everytime, and I just don't see it.  I've played the series extensively and it is basically the same thing over and over, and the story is not that deep.  I'm not saying that having 'you' be the hero isn't a valid strategy anymore, I just don't it works the way they set up that franchise.  I find the games rather dull, and it's one of those areas where Nintendo's lack of production values shows up in a big way.  There's no reason for any game like that, with the technology we have, to not be voiced over.  It's about getting par for the course, and it's very easy to get there.  It's a constant throughout Nintendo's games, and it bothers me a lot.  I don't think Metroid is anything special either.  

 

Nintendo hasn't excited me in years, even two generations ago the GameCube was my neglected system.  I think their hardware has displayed a lack of awareness of what gamers want, with the stupid waggle motion controller and the unwieldy television sized controller they recently implemented.  They generally have a lack of third party support, and if Zelda and Metroid are all they have to offer to the hardcore crowd I don't see the point.

 

You're not going to convince me that Nintendo wouldn't be better off as a mobile game company.  Their shallow lighthearted gaming would greatly appeal to that crowd, it features consumers that fit into their casual and expanding market share, and it's an area that's just waiting for a big developer who understands that sort of platform to come in and take over.  Mario on Android is something even I would buy because that's where it works.  

 

Until Nintendo can develop a game as deep and emotionally engaging as Mass Effect, I'll continue to find them irrelevant and you're not going to convince me otherwise.

While I don't agree they should change their format completely to mobile gaming, I do agree that they should release some games like Mario or Pokemon. Hell, there was an app that simply just said Pokemon Yellow for 99 cents on the app store and it blew up like crazy. It was a fake app, but it was still one of the best selling apps for a while until Apple pulled it from the store.   They could make so much more money importing some games to mobile.

 

I don't understand how you could call them irrelevant, their STILL making high quality games and STILL one of the best selling video game companies out there today. 

[sliceanddic3]

Nintendo is a gimmick system, as always... Gimmicks fade.

Nintendo, the biggest/longest gimmick in the history of gimmicks. Since they've been making video games since 1974.

[Cville-Raven]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUCGiWS7H4Q

god if only Lucasarts would have completed this thing

Edited June 13, 2013 by Cville-Raven